Very astute critique! I think you and Paul hit on the main potential weakness of this film clip. Paul thought the beginning animation was disjoint from the rest, and you the "two halves" in the movie distinct from each other. And you are both right. It's like 3 different sections attached to each in a short amount of space.

The abrupt change reflects the abrupt change in the focus of the film clip. At first I started out with the intention of showing how critical water is to the landscapes here in the West, and how different the two environments are with or without water. Then on June 11th we hit record-breaking heat and 4 wildfires erupted in Colorado overnight. Naturally, the focus of the film had to address this and the second half of the clip turns in this direction. So instead of 2.5 minutes (the length of the song) dedicated to juxtaposing Colorado landscapes with and without water as I started out to do, it turned into 4 minutes with these obvious two distinct halves.

All in all, these abrupt distinctions didn't bother me too much but it does reveal a certain lack of consistency and a nice weaving of thought and motive throughout. I agree that this will be seen as a negative rather than a positive characteristic to some or maybe most who view it. Ah well! It's how it fell together and it worked well enough for me!

Thanks so much for your input! I very much appreciate you taking the time to watch our clips and give us your thoughts!

If you get a chance, read my comment to John. Maybe it would be fun creating a film forum dedicated to the issues of global warming. It might be a strong voice in that we could be filming first hand what we are experiencing all over the world in our own back yards. It's worth the conversation at least!

Global Warming Film Forum: I'm all in favor of that!

We've got two 5-acre parcels just up the hill where the forest down to every blade of grass was removed.

Then there is the North Fork of Johnson Creek that is just below a recently constructed shopping center. The environmental review said "no significant damage". The fish count (taken annually at the same location for a specified time period) was recording over 125 salmon prior to construction about 10 years ago. Ever since it was built the count dwindled and in two of the last three most recent years the number of fish counted is ZERO. Zilch. No significant impact? what are they smoking? And, the city lawyer says it is all perfectly legal.

In the meantime the Government is spending millions to "save" Hood Canal and Puget Sound.

The problem starts with City and County planners who say there is negligible environmental damage and give their blessing to developments.